|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With changing the shutterspeed I can make the screenshot look even more like a night scene and with much darker blacks than the first, but it far from correct and it looks like sh*t.
This is why screenshots are bull, and you can say nothing from them if they are not taken with the same camera on the same screen and with the same settings. Then it can add some value for comparison.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
169.3 KB |
| Viewed: |
1979 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
132.69 KB |
| Viewed: |
1979 Time(s) |
|
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:31 am; edited 5 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bloody battery keeps getting uncharged all the time but managed to capture some new once. But the camera does indeed give images a blue haze and on the planet shot, but thank God looks white in reality. I wonder what settings I must use to get rid of the blue then..
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
274.2 KB |
| Viewed: |
1977 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
193.41 KB |
| Viewed: |
1977 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
206.07 KB |
| Viewed: |
1977 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Mikes shot VS JVC take 2.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys kill me. Comparing black levels with screen shots...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | You guys kill me. Comparing black levels with screen shots...
|
Excactly.
+100 
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Mikes shot VS JVC take 2. |
What is your point?
My point is that screenshot are worthless as the camera setting can change everything. I could make my picture look exactly like Mikes except color, but it is not what is shown on screen when the shot is from a daylight scene. If it is the way a CRT shows the scene from Apocalypto it is worse than I could ever imagine.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Mikes shot VS JVC take 2. |
What is your point?
My point is that screenshot are worthless as the camera setting can change everything. I could make my picture look exactly like Mikes except color, but it is not what is shown on screen when the shot is from a daylight scene. If it is the way a CRT shows the scene from Apocalypto it is worse than I could ever imagine. |
You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen.
Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | redfox001 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | redfox001 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | This is how high MTF should look like, this from my sold VW1000/1100.
It should be taken much closer, but I donīt have the right lens for that. But we get an idea anyway. |
Simple said MTF is subtracting black from white when displaying 1 pixel black than 1 pixel white.
See here tse's explanation
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/16-crt-projectors/633597-wtf-mtf.html
Now it does not say that 1 pixel on 1 pixel off should be a square wave. It says to measure black and white.
If you see the 1 pixel on 1 off as a spatial wave. You see that to sample a sine wave you need 2 samples that means 2 pixels. So the 1:1 can at most reproduce a sine wave. However the digital makes it a square wave. If you understand Fourier you know that a square wave has a ground frequency and harmonics. The digital adds these harmonics and that is called pixelation. It looks great on artificial desktop pictures but it does enhance detail in real situations.
So this picture of you is not a sine wave and so it is wrong. Now do go into the technical discussion please because you guys seem to know nothing about Fourier, Nyquist sampling criteria or the fact that your pixels are samples that should be filtered like in cd audio where the samples are interpolated and filtered to reproduce the original singnal that is the Nyquist/Shanon sampling theorema. You want the mathematics? |
I know what MTF is and I dont have to spend hours reading up on it. If you read what spankyham writes a CRT does not have 100% MTF and far from it he says max 30% at 1080p, and I am a little nicer and say 30-50% at 1080p. And I am sorry but it is the thruth. 
And I am sorry to say that all digital media is based on pixels, even movies shot on film is digitally mastered.
And this was only a MTF discussion nothing else, just admit you where wrong with a CRT can show 1080p at 100% MTF?? |
No digital media is on samples not about pixels. Your digital makes them pixels. A crt makes them analogue. |
So you say digital media is not pixels?? So when a movie is shot with the Red Epic in 5K it does not have 5K resolution??
What is more correct? To let digital media be digital or make it analogue?? |
The camera makes samples. When you give those samples to a video dac it makes an analogue signal. The signal before it was sampled was analogue too we do not live in a digital world you know. But your digital projector never makes it analogue again
The sampling theorema says that the original analogue signal can 100% be reconstructed from digital samples when the highest frequency in the signal is halve the sampling rate.
But with digital projectors the original is not even reconstructed properly.
The video dac in a CRT does a more accurate job as long as it has very high bandwidth like Mike makes them.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now who is clueless? 
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: | | Now who is clueless? |
Hehe.
Just another day in the CRT world.
You need to see this side by side. A screenshot has NO WALUE WHATSOEVER if different camera and screen.
But many god shots.
Depends on shutter time and so on.
hehe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah the sidekick doing his act again.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | You're missing the point. I'm saying why does your image NOT show true and deep black. The crush issue is most likely the camera. You can't depend on these cheap cameras to get that right.
Sometime you can capture all the detail and sometime you can't. The point in capturing the shot is to show how well you're able to reveal the true Black in the mud. The Mud is not gray. And if you look in the shot, you'll notice on the right of the guy, an area that is more gray than black. let that be your reference that true black does exist in that image |
Do someone need to KNOKL this in your head its a screenshot.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | You guys kill me. Comparing black levels with screen shots...
|
You are so so so so so so so so so so so right.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
Do you understand what we are struggling with hehe
And I don't care 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | With changing the shutterspeed I can make the screenshot looke even more like a nigh scene and with much darker blacks than the first, but it far from correct and it looks like sh*t.
This is why screenshots is bull, and you can say nothing from them if they are not taken with the same camera on the same screen and with the same settings. Then it can add some value for comparison. |
110% right Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | redfox001 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | redfox001 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | This is how high MTF should look like, this from my sold VW1000/1100.
It should be taken much closer, but I donīt have the right lens for that. But we get an idea anyway. |
Simple said MTF is subtracting black from white when displaying 1 pixel black than 1 pixel white.
See here tse's explanation
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/16-crt-projectors/633597-wtf-mtf.html
Now it does not say that 1 pixel on 1 pixel off should be a square wave. It says to measure black and white.
If you see the 1 pixel on 1 off as a spatial wave. You see that to sample a sine wave you need 2 samples that means 2 pixels. So the 1:1 can at most reproduce a sine wave. However the digital makes it a square wave. If you understand Fourier you know that a square wave has a ground frequency and harmonics. The digital adds these harmonics and that is called pixelation. It looks great on artificial desktop pictures but it does enhance detail in real situations.
So this picture of you is not a sine wave and so it is wrong. Now do go into the technical discussion please because you guys seem to know nothing about Fourier, Nyquist sampling criteria or the fact that your pixels are samples that should be filtered like in cd audio where the samples are interpolated and filtered to reproduce the original singnal that is the Nyquist/Shanon sampling theorema. You want the mathematics? |
I know what MTF is and I dont have to spend hours reading up on it. If you read what spankyham writes a CRT does not have 100% MTF and far from it he says max 30% at 1080p, and I am a little nicer and say 30-50% at 1080p. And I am sorry but it is the thruth.
And I am sorry to say that all digital media is based on pixels, even movies shot on film is digitally mastered.
And this was only a MTF discussion nothing else, just admit you where wrong with a CRT can show 1080p at 100% MTF?? |
No digital media is on samples not about pixels. Your digital makes them pixels. A crt makes them analogue. |
So you say digital media is not pixels?? So when a movie is shot with the Red Epic in 5K it does not have 5K resolution??
What is more correct? To let digital media be digital or make it analogue?? |
The camera makes samples. When you give those samples to a video dac it makes an analogue signal. The signal before it was sampled was analogue too we do not live in a digital world you know. But your digital projector never makes it analogue again
The sampling theorema says that the original analogue signal can 100% be reconstructed from digital samples when the highest frequency in the signal is halve the sampling rate.
But with digital projectors the original is not even reconstructed properly.
The video dac in a CRT does a more accurate job as long as it has very high bandwidth like Mike makes them. |
And the samples contain pixels right?? What do you think is more correct, show the digital source material on a digital or an analogue??
This is so stupid!
Just admit you made a huge blunder when you said CRTīs can show 1080p with 100% MTF.
And yes I find you clueless!
And of corse I know we live in an analogue world, but almost all our media is now digital and you must live with that. What will you do when there is no longer possible to repair your beloved CRT, stop watching movies??
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:36 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
You are so right, but the way people is acting around here throwing sh*t and trash talk about my wife and stuff it has come to a point where I will never back down to these fanatics.
And what you say about artificial sharpness is so true, but try to get them to agree with you is impossible. It is like beating a dead horse and think it would wake up.
These guys would never admit a digital to have better total picture quality than a CRT even if it was so clear a 3 year old could see it. I on the other hand would have no problem admitting a CRT to be better if someone showed it to me, but it has not happened yet.
And I am open mided and no fanboy of any tech or brand and I am only after the best my money can buy, and that is why I test on a regular basis with different digitals and even CRT`s when I get the chance. All this because I am curious and want to see as much as I can to know what looks best to me and my wallet.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | You're missing the point. I'm saying why does your image NOT show true and deep black. The crush issue is most likely the camera. You can't depend on these cheap cameras to get that right.
Sometime you can capture all the detail and sometime you can't. The point in capturing the shot is to show how well you're able to reveal the true Black in the mud. The Mud is not gray. And if you look in the shot, you'll notice on the right of the guy, an area that is more gray than black. let that be your reference that true black does exist in that image |
Do someone need to KNOKL this in your head its a screenshot..... |
Tell that to your side kick, that's who posted the two shots in comparison
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
But what would you expect in the CRT FORUM. Or did any of us CRT fanboys inadvertently post in the Digital section..
Is this still the CRT Forum?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
